Does/can physical audio theory exist?

I've been wondering,

Since some sound generating physical phenomena have been physically modelled as physical modelling synthesisers,

Does there exist a "physical audio theory" (or scientific subdomains fit for belonging to "physical audio theory"), which is like a subfield of applied mathematics or physics that describes the theory of sound generators, propagation and such. For example, the Karplus-Strong algorithm and its analysis would belong there and it would be presented as a derivation of string physics. Sure there's the physics of sound under physics, but I have not seen a coherent mathematical theory on "physical modelling synthesis", even if "physical modelling synthesis" could perhaps be laid out as mathematical formalisms, e.g. as an "applied linear algebra" body of theory. It seems like much of audio DSP is just scattered information.

For those interested, I also think there are at least some books concerning "physical audio theory", an example would be this book:

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/designing-sound

It does contain chapters that predominantly analyze natural phenomena or "sound generating settings" and try to translate those into expressions in mathematics, using concepts from physics. The derivations don't differ that much from e.g. typical engineering analysis. Much like the Karplus-Strong algorithm was developed by analyzing string instruments.

• There are several books related to the topic, including (but not limited to): "Physics and Music" by White, "The Physics of Sound" by Berg, "Music, Physics and Engineering" by Olson, "The Theory of Sound" by Rayleigh, "Musimathics: The Mathematical Foundations of Music" by Loy, and etc. The perceptual end would include many many books on audiology, psychoacoustics and human hearing. They all cover slightly different but greatly overlapping sets of topics, some based around physics. What is an elephant? – hotpaw2 Jan 29 '16 at 19:08
• "It seems like much of audio DSP is just scattered information."  yes, it does seem that way. (somethings things are as they appear.) – robert bristow-johnson Jan 30 '16 at 1:43
• I don't think the question is more opinion-based than a question concerning "foundations" of some theory/thing. If "physical audio theory" is feasible, then there wouldn't be "that many" ways for expressing it, which means that it would be well-defined. – mavavilj Jan 30 '16 at 9:54